His authority did not carry with it the power to bind the company by an absolute sale. ( McKeige v. Carroll, 120 App. Div. 521, 524; Clough v. Whitcomb, 105 Mass. 483; McKindly v. Dunham, 55 Wis. 515; 13 N.W. 485.) Defendant had a right to approve or reject the offer as it saw fit.

It is simply an attempt to vary the terms of the note and the trust agreement accompanying it by postponing the time of payment set forth in both instruments, which upon their face appear to constitute a complete agreement. This cannot be done. ( Thomas v. Scutt, 127 N.Y. 133; McKeige v. Carroll, 120 App. Div. 521.) The cases cited by respondent do not apply, for there the defense was that the notes sued upon were never to become valid, enforcible obligations until certain contingencies occurred.

"A commission allowed to one who solicits orders, upon sales effected through such orders, does not constitute or prove the solicitor to be an agent of the seller, with authority to make absolute contracts of sale." McKeige v. Carroll, 120 A.D. 521. No attempt was made to establish acceptance of McCarthy's order, unless it is to be held that the delivery of the twenty-four cases to the defendant's customers constituted such as a matter of law.